Keeler wrote:The Confederates imported several foreign artillery pieces, including an unknown number of Austrian 6lb howitzers, at least 13 24lb Austrian howitzers, a pair of 3.75 in Austrian rifles, a Blakely rifle, and several Whitworth Rifles- which are perhaps the most well-known. More info here.

While the Confederacy did maintain an advantage or parity in small arms for a good part of the war, my understanding is it fell behind rather quickly in artillery. The South simply couldn't produce or obtain the caliber of weapons available to the North, and particularly suffered from a lack of rifled pieces and rifling equipment. There are also persistent claims the Confederacy increasingly suffered from poor quality control of fuses and shells. Based on what I've read over the years, I think one could argue North probably gained an advantage in artillery leadership and crew skill as the war continued, but I have no proof of that. At any rate some or all of these factors put Southern batteries at an increasing disadvantage during the war, as their opponents could fire more accurately and at greater distances. This help explains why, with the exception of Chancellorsville, Confederate artillery generally played a minimal role in the Confederacy's offensive victories and failed miserably in several instances, such as Malvern Hill and Gettysburg (both on July 2nd at Benner's Hill and on July 3rd during Pickett's Charge). While it is true artillery remained more devastating as a defensive weapon than as an offensive hammer, the North became more effective using that arm to project power across the battlefield- especially when it came to counter-battery fire.

The problem wasn't the shortage of Artillery pieces but the lack of horses and fodder to feed them. By spring 1862 they had to downsize the number of guns in Artillery Battalions in Virginia leaving perfectly good guns behind because there simply weren't enough horses. Lee inherited a miserable supply problem that he desperately tried to fix, of every 7000 lbs of supply sent to the Army of Northern Virginia only 4500 lbs made it to it's designation. This resulted in major supply shortages in the spring and summer of 1862. It got so bad armed guards were deployed to protect supplies and their movement who were ordered to shoot looters on site.

As a Federal player, I have traditionally preferred to include a marine/sailor element in every division, to minimize the downsides of having to frequently attack across rivers (plus they're generally good fighters). The naval landing RDC can supplement this effort best in the West. Additionally, I like to spread out the early Volunteer brigades so that no division is overloaded with militia & light infantry (at the expense of line infantry).
The chief advantage of militia is that their brigades have a command cost of 1, making them the cheapest to command. This suits them best for independent commands i.e. garrison duty. I don't think you can mix militia elements from different states into the same brigade, but you can mix them with "all-states" militias (e.g. Unionists & colored militia), which can extend the virtual force pools of border states. McClellan, Halleck, and Sigel can sit back and train militia into quite-effective regular brigades that still only cost one command point (although I generally use them to train conscripts instead) in places like New York, Philadelphia, Pittsburgh, Cincinatti, and Louisville/Bowling Green

Straight Arrow, you are doing a great job keeping this thread updated.

I found a small, odd point when I was messing around with Price's starting force in Arkansas:

If you merge individual militia elements from different states of origin, the lesser powered militia element will change it's state of origin to that of the higher powered element. Doing so would remove the out of state movement penalty.
Example: Merging the Texas militia unit with a higher powered Arkansas militia will turn the Texas unit into a Arkansas unit.

It is a bit gamey and probably not working as designed, but it is there...

The Unit might nominally be noted with a State-of-Origin, but the element should be what counts. Check the cohesion of the Texas militia in Arkansas and compare it to the Arkansas militia's cohesion. You should see a difference.

I looked, they both have the same maximum cohesion. The unit info panel shows that the Texas boys have changed their state of origin to Arkansas. They have been fully integrated. A Texas militia unit was even added to the build pool upon merging.

They must like the mountain view, they don't want to go back to Texas.

[color="#FFFF00"]• If you can take Alexandria, defending Virginia in 1862 becomes a whole lot simpler with 3 corps at Alex-Leesburg-Harpers, with rivers in front and rail linking 2 of the 3 regions.

• To secure the capital, act as a fire brigade, or to reinforce with fresh troops, keep a division in Richmond.

[color="#FFFF00"]• Loyalty under 50% in east TN will allow Union partisan creation. This can be stopped by using martial law and entrenchments to raise loyalty in key areas.[/color]

• Synchronize Movement is selected by default. When the Army HQ moves, all subordinate corps in the same region will automatically synchronize w/o this Special Order.

Forts

[color="#FFFF00"]• Put a fort in Paducah, New Orleans, Norfolk, Memphis, Wilmington and other key locations.[/color]

Nice thread. Some points I wanted to make.

Is this just a CSA points to know, or can tips be made for the Union too?

Play to Win strategy...please elaborate? Does it mean go for broke to get Washington?

-As CSA in the East, try to avoid a defensive line wider than 3 provinces. All ANV corps should be in a position to support each other.
-The Rappahannock line is the strongest defensive line for the CSA in the East. (Culpepper and Spotsalvania regions) Have the fixed units in those regions get started on entrenchments in those regions from day one, and don't let the Union cross that line.

The division in Richmond is a good idea, a more general principle - always have a mobile reserve with some punch behind your front to respond to unexpected.

-Partisans cannot be formed by RDC, if you have 0%MC in a region. (And don't form partisans in the mud of winter, you don't want them to starve immediately...wait for good weather.

Synchronize Movement does not need the presence of an Army HQ. Manually setting the order for two army corps in the same region will have the same impact.

-Forts need cannons inside them to block river supply or bombard ships

No, there's plenty there to help a Union player, as well; but, the CSA (noob players, like me) definitely benefit a lot more than so.

IMO, P2Win is all about a necessary EARLY AGGRESSIVE strategy. Perhaps, we could call it, "Go for broke." If it works, you win; if not, well, history repeats itself. The Union has MORE of everything, except for better generals. By '62, some Union generals start appearing with better stats; but, the real story is at the level of starting and early 2 and 3 star generals. Union stats for its starting and early 2/3 star generals is well below that of the South. Hence, my CSA games encourage and me to be more proactive: I win more battles but since being on the attack, I suffer greater casualties (along with chit replenishment requirements) and chance being overwhelmed by the ever growing supply lines of the resource rich North.

The defensive line advise addresses "march to the sound of guns" for Corps supporting each other. Once you spread beyond adjacent hexes, there's no way for MTSG to work. So, this is good, practice counsel.

Likewise, growing and keeping reserves (to swap out with a stack in need of replenishing) is rock solid advise, allowing any army to continue a steady grind forward. Without it, you'll lose the initiative, granting the enemy time to entrench, reinforce, and prepare.

This thread ought to be sticky-ed!!!!!!

Thanks for pointing out some things that still have eluded me (read through this list three times already...and still finding more stuff that I missed.

THE CREATOR OF THIS THREAD DID A GREAT JOB FOR US RECENT (late 2015) NEWCOMERS!

It doesn't take an unfrozen caveman lawyer to figure out this thread should be stickied. Maybe replace the stickied thread for the obsolete 1.05 patch..

Rather than rename it we should just provide points for the Union. Straight Arrow may be short on time and I don't think he has played the Union much. I'd guess he would be more than willing to copy and paste any points provided into the OP.

Cardinal Ape wrote:Rather than rename it we should just provide points for the Union. Straight Arrow may be short on time and I don't think he has played the Union much. I'd guess he would be more than willing to copy and paste any points provided into the OP.

That may work. I was however considering the new player trying to navigate through this thread to find the Union discussion. We are already at 85+ posts, all regarding the CSA. Just a thought, either way works.

Actually, at least a dozen are about how this needs to be stickied and what a great thread it is. The longer whoever it is that is supposed to sticky things waits, the more extraneous posts like this one newcomers will have to wade through to get at the meat once this thread is FINALLY stickied.

John S. Mosby wrote:I wish we could rename the thread "CSA Points to Know" to avoid confusion.

I don't know if is possible to rename the thread; I was able to rename the post heading, but not the thread.

I think it's an excellent idea to split the thread into CSA and Union counter parts. Doing so will make it easier to wade through the sheer mass of material. Currently, my back up copy is at 17 pages and growing.

Thanks to GraniteStater for taking on the Federals; feel free to lift anything here that applies to the North. Let's try to coordinate the format and structure. If there are any section headings you would like to added or changed, let me know and it will be done.